January 2013

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339254/are-we-really-back-relying-egyptian-military-save-day-andrew-c-mccarthy Back when Mubarak was clinging to power and the Tahrir Square rioting was intensifying, I cautioned that it would be foolish for the West to assume that the Egyptian military — principal recipient of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars over the last 40 years — would step in and stop the country […]

There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.

In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington’s partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,”If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News…for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.”

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him.

The president seems more comfortable talking to “real journalists” such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama’s reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, “The Kid Who Made Obama President.” You can’t make this stuff up.

This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

http://www.jinsa.org/publications/jinsa-visiting-fellows/about-jinsa-visiting-fellows-program Synopsis: While it is relatively easy to find the right rhetoric for disengagement from Egypt, the fact of the matter is that the Obama administration has put all of its eggs in Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s basket. If the authority of the Morsi government were to fail, American planners would have to consider urgent […]

Why is anyone surprised by President Obama’s choices of Chuck Hagel and John Kerry and John Brennan? Where have they been during the past four years?

President Obama, in his first speech to the United Nations in 2009 made his sentiments very clear.

He ignored, as he always has, the terrorism and barbaric human rights violation in the Moslem world, stating that “Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world….protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide, mass atrocities, more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease.”

Well, some of those very deep pockets of the world are in Saudi Arabia where the President of the United Nations bowed to the tyrant who promotes and funds and enables genocide and terror.

And, let’s face it there are no “melting ice caps” in Saudi Arabia or those Moslem nations he is so eager to avoid dissing.

Then after platitudes upon platitudes he segued into the Middle East and mentioned his “special Czar for Middle East Peace- George Mitchell, a Chuck Hagel In John Kerry clothing.

And what did he promise his Czar would do to end the Israel/Arab conflict? He evoked a Mitchell engineered settlement based on “….security for Israelis and Palestinians….two states living side by side in peace and security- a Jewish Stqte of Israel…..and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. “

Contiguous territory? I hereby offer a free lifetime subscription to OUTPOST to anyone who can figure out how to make Gaza and the West Bank contiguous without strangling Israel.

Then the man who has Israel’s back added “ The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate
claims and rights of the Palestinians.”

There are four people who share those thoughts….Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Brennan and Chuck Hagel.

A bad idea on all counts Mackubin Thomas Owens
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/coed-combat-units_697822.html

For over two decades, I have been arguing against the idea of placing American women in combat or in support positions associated with direct ground combat. I base my position on three factors. First, there are substantial physical differences between men and women that place the latter at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to ground combat. Second, men treat women differently than they treat other men. This can undermine the comradeship upon which the unit cohesion necessary to success on the battlefield depends. Finally, the presence of women leads to double standards that seriously erode morale and performance. In other words, men and women are not interchangeable.

Physical Differences

The average female soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine is about five inches shorter than her male counterpart and has half the upper body strength, lower aerobic capacity (at her physical peak between the ages of 20 and 30, the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male), and 37 percent less muscle mass. She has a lighter skeleton, which means that the physical strain on her body from carrying the heavy loads that are the lot of the infantryman may cause permanent damage.

But can’t these differences be reduced? In the past, gender politics has made it difficult—if not impossible—to ascertain exactly what can be done to improve the performance of women, because advocates of gender equity understand that the establishment of objective strength criteria would have a deleterious effect on their demand to open the infantry to women. Several years ago, the Army attempted to establish such strength standards and pretests for each military occupational specialty, but those efforts were abandoned when studies showed that not enough women would meet the standards proposed for many Army jobs. Funding subsequently was denied for a study about remedial strength training for women.

Anatomical differences between men and women are as important as strength differences. A woman cannot urinate standing up. Most important, she tends, particularly if she is under the age of 30 (as are 60 percent of female military personnel) to become pregnant.

Indeed, each year, somewhere between 10 and 17 percent of servicewomen become pregnant. In certain locales, the figure is even higher. Former senator James Webb noted that when he was secretary of the Navy in 1988, 51 percent of single Air Force and 48 percent of single Navy women stationed in Iceland were pregnant. During pregnancy (if she remains in the service at all), a woman must be exempted from progressively more routine duties, such as marching, field training, and swim tests. After the baby is born, there are more problems, as exemplified by the many thousand uniformed-service mothers, none of whom fairly could be called a frontline soldier.

Women also suffer a higher rate of attrition than men from physical ailments, and because of the turnover, are a more costly investment. Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically nonavailable at any time is twice that of men. If a woman can’t do her job, someone else must do it for her.

If one doesn’t believe me, perhaps one should look at an article by a Marine officer, Captain Katie Petronio, in the Marine Corps Gazette, the Corps’s professional journal (“Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal”). She noted the physical deterioration she suffered during her deployment to Afghanistan as a combat engineer officer:

It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment . . . I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.

Left-wingers are once again pushing a so-called comprehensive immigration reform package that helps their cause more than it helps America.

The proposal, still in rough outline, was unveiled at a Capitol Hill press conference Monday. It makes vague promises, the same promises that have been echoing in the corridors of power for decades, of finally enforcing the nation’s porous border with Mexico. It comes days after left-wing groups vowed to lay the groundwork to turn Texas deep Democrat blue.

The plan is backed by a bipartisan group of senators known informally as the Gang of 8. The four Democrats are Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Illinois), Robert Menendez (New Jersey), Chuck Schumer (New York), and Michael Bennet (Colorado). The Republican half of the gang consists of John McCain (Arizona), Marco Rubio (Florida), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), and freshman senator Jeff Flake (Arizona).

The proposal has less to do with helping immigrants, legal or otherwise, and more to do with helping politicians.

Starry-eyed Republicans think that backing the measure, whether it passes or not, will somehow win their party Latino votes. They must hope that if it becomes law the new voters it brings to their party’s fold will more than offset the all-but-certain exodus of fed-up conservatives the legislation will prompt. Those disgruntled Republican-leaning voters are the same people whose failure to vote in November helped to deprive GOP candidate Mitt Romney of the presidency.

Democrats, on the other hand, know with much greater certainty that the legislation will secure their party more votes. “This legislation is all about the Democrats bringing in new voters who will assure them of a permanent leftist majority,” writes Paul Mirengoff at Power Line.

Radicals’ goal is to use immigration to subvert the American system, just as it has been since the 1960s when the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) shepherded reform of that era’s immigration laws through Congress. The concept is simple: Flood America with people who don’t share Americans’ traditional philosophical commitment to the rule of law, limited government and free markets, in order to force changes in society.

Candidates from the increasingly extreme Democratic Party traditionally fare well among new Americans and even better among those voting illegally.

Some illegal immigrants not only vote illegally, but also illegally help bring Democratic voters to the polls. In the recent election, Democrats enlisted thousands of young illegal immigrants to drag Democratic supporters to the polls.

Sweden’s population grew from 9 million to 9.5 million in the years 2004-2012, mainly due to immigration from “countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia”. 16 percent of all newborns have mothers born in non-Western countries. Employment rate among immigrants: 54 percent.

Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.

In 2003, Sweden’s rape statistics were higher than average at 9.24, but in 2005 they shot up to 36.8 and by 2008 were up to 53.2. Now they are almost certainly even higher as Muslim immigrants continue forming a larger percentage of the population.

With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

The statistics are skewed by urban centers where the Islamic colonists cluster. In Stockholm this summer there was an average of 5 rapes a day. Stockholm has gone from a Swedish city to a city that is one-third immigrant and is between a fifth and a quarter Muslim.

Sweden, like the rest of the West, will have to come to terms with the fact that it can either have female equality or Muslim immigration. It cannot have both.

Don’t miss this special episode of The Glazov Gang in which Mike Finch, the Chief Operating Officer at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Dwight Schultz, a Hollywood actor who played Murdock on NBC’s The-A-Team, discuss: Jihadists on the Offensive. The discussion, which occurred in Part I, focuses on Hillary’s Benghazi testimony and the catastrophic failure it reflected in Obama’s handling of the terror war. In Part II, the Gang unravels why radicals are waging war on heroic truth-teller, Rep. Michele Bachmann. Watch both segments of the two-part series below:

Part I: Jihadists on the Offensive.

Part II: The Agenda Behind The Left’s War on Michele Bachmann.

You can make sure that Jamie Glazov Productions continues to take you where no other media programs dare to go. Help us by clicking here and making a tax deductible contribution today. To see the archives of The Glazov Gang, click here.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/jeff-ludwig/arab-rage-unrest-and-anti-americanism-is-nothing-new/ The delivery of tanks and F-16s to Egypt, originally promised to the Mubarak regime, but now forwarded to Morsi and the Brotherhood, is the latest phase of U.S. engagement with a Middle East in turmoil. Though all kinds of nasty and brutal individuals are still in charge, and though the thrust of the Arab […]

Britain Is No Place for Jews Since I came home from London, subsequent events have borne out my dim assessment of England, and done so at break-neck pace. As one of Britain’s great righteous gentiles Douglas Murray wrote in an essay published yesterday by the Gatestone Institute, England is no longer even trying to hide its anti-Semitism. At this point, to live well in the kingdom, Jews are required to accept or at least express minimal objection to the dominant narrative that Israel is the current Nazi Germany.

Back in 2005, I felt it was a mistake for Israel to push for the UN to establish an international Holocaust remembrance day. What did we need it for?

The UN emerged at the 2001 Durban conference as the epicenter of global anti-Semitism. Why should we give it an out for its hostility towards live Jews by letting it pretend it isn’t an anti-Semitic institution because it mourns dead Jews?

At any rate, it took no time at all for the UN and its member states to use the new International Holocaust Remembrance Day as a means of defaming Israel and so gunning for a new Holocaust of Jewry.

In England in the space of a week, a British parliament member from the Liberal-Democrat Pary named David Ward said that Israel is perpetrating a Holocaust on the Palestinians Arabs, and the Sunday Times published the above anti-Semitic, Nazi-styled cartoon. The cartoon came out on the ill-conceived International Holocaust Memorial Day.